The Royal Netherlands Navy (Koninklijke Marine) plans to build Multifunction Support Ships (MSS) to bolster the presence and firepower of its conventional surface fleet. Here we look at this innovative solution and its potential implications for other navies.
Background
The RNLN announced the MSS project in 2022, initially known as TRIFIC (Rapidly Increased Firepower Capability), but renamed the MICAN (Modular Integrated Capability for ACDF and North Sea) in December 2023. It is now more commonly referred to as the MSS project.
Based on an existing Damen Fast Crew Supplier vessel design, MSS will carry a containerised weapon payload and act as a force multiplier or maritime ‘loyal wingman’ for conventional warships. MSS aims to increase the RNLN’s air defence capabilities and land attack options while also reinforcing the protection of vital underwater infrastructure in the North Sea. This represents an affordable and rapid way to add mass to the fleet. Although this kind of concept has been around for some time the RNLN are the first European navy to commit funding and effort to making it a reality.
MSS will be part of a distributed operations construct working closely in coordination with the four De Zeven Provinciën-class air defence frigates (Luchtverdedigings- en CommandoFregat – LCF). MSS will act as a mobile missile magazine, operating close to the LCFs which will cue the weapons with target data, control the launch and the engagement.
The MSS development has partly been driven by the obsolescence of the Standard Missile-2 (SM-2) Block IIIA medium-range missile that currently equips the LCF but is no longer in production by Raytheon. The latest SM-2 Block IIICU variant would not be compatible with the LCF fire control system without major modifications. The RNLN will continue to embark its existing stock of SM-2 missiles on the LCF but will acquire complementary new long-range air defence weapons with anti-ballistic missile capability for the MSS.
Proven platform
MSS is based on Damen’s Fast Crew Supplier design already in widespread use, primarily in the commercial energy sector but also employed as the basis for naval OPVs. MSS is based on the FCS 5009 variant (The XV Patrick Blackett purchased for the RN in 2022 from Damen is part of the same family of vessels but is the slightly smaller FCS 4009). The MSS are likely to be built by Damen’s Song Cam Shipyard in Vietnam, where labour costs are a fraction of what they are in the Netherlands.
The vessel displaces 325 tons and is 53.2 meters in length with a beam of 10m and a draft of 3.2m. The aft deck is 28 x 8.5m (225m2) and can accommodate a variety of containerised payloads. Containers can be welded to the deck, although a more sophisticated shipboard handling and loading solution such as the Cube system made by SH Defence could be fitted. Davits for a single RIB are provided as well as a hydraulic crane for the launch and recovery of small UUVs.
FCS 5009 standard speed up to 27 knots and the unique axe-bow design delivers exceptional seakeeping qualities, cutting through rather than over waves, allowing them to maintain high speeds in poor weather. This is an important consideration as they will need to keep up with the frigates in high seas. Propulsion comes from 4 diesel engines that comply with civilian emissions standards and could be converted to synthetic or biofuel in future. For a small vessel, the FCS 5009 has a long range of up to 3,700km and MSS are unlikely to be equipped for replenishment at sea.
They are steel-hulled vessels with aluminium superstructures but there are no plans to increase survivability to warship standards as this would require expensive re-design. Although not explicitly stated, they are potentially far more attritable than $billion warships and could be risked in higher-threat areas, especially if they eventually operated as uncrewed platforms.
-
The maritime version of the Harap loitering munition can be employed in the ISR role and well as direct strike. It carries a 23kg warhead with an IR seeker, anti-radar homing system, forward-looking infrared (FLIR) and an EO camera (Image: IAI). -
Barak-ER ground-based test-launch (Photo: IAI) -
The Barak family of missiles includes the MRAD (35 km range), the Barak LRAD (70 km) and the Barak ER (150 km) and over 1,000 have been exported by Israel. These missiles share common components and the ER version is enabled by an additional 1.3m booster motor (Image: IAI). -
The IAI All-Capabilites Defence Container (ACDC) concept. Designed to bolt onto small vessels, all the elements can be concealed within the TEU container. The proposed weapons configurations are 4 Mini Harpy long-range loitering munitions and Eight Rotem L loitering munitions (Photo: Navy Lookout). -
The ACDC includes a 2-person operations room with integrated radar, communications and ISR masts (Photo: Navy Lookout).
Firepower
Following an evaluation of available systems, the Dutch Ministry of Defence has selected Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) as the main supplier of weapons and EW systems to equip MSS. Few nations can match the recent anti-missile combat experience and proven reliability of Israeli-manufactured systems. The primary weapon will be the Barak-ER (Extended Range) surface-to-air missile. The MDBA Aster 30 Block 1NT missile was considered but cannot be containerised and the IAI Rafael Stunner did not fully meet RNLN requirements.
Paired with the LCF fire control and combat systems, Barak-ER can defeat a wide variety of targets, including crewed and uncrewed aircraft, anti-ship cruise missiles and ballistic missiles out to a range of 150 km and altitudes of up to 20,000m.
The MSS-based Barak-ER interceptor will be cued by the LCF’s SMART-L MM/N L-band radar that can detect threats at 2,000km range will provide the Netherlands with a short and medium-range anti-ballistic missile capability. The integration and ensuring an unbroken data link between the two platforms is perhaps the most demanding aspect of this project.
Primarily to support amphibious operations, the IAI Harap multi-mission, long-range loitering munition system has been selected for MSS. Harap can loiter over the battlespace for up to 6 hours communicating with the launch platform up to 200km range and can attack targets up to 1,000km away. It is propellor driven but can achieve speeds up to 225 knots. Harap is a human-in-the-loop system carrying an ISR payload to identify and strike targets and provide real-time battle damage assessment. It’s long range was the primary reason for selecting Harap as future amphibious operations will be carried out at dispersed locations and at increasing distance from the coast.
Harap will complete a well-balanced land attack capability being acquired by the RNLN through the LCF mid-life upgrade. This includes the 1000km-range Tomahawk missile and the Leonardo 127/64 LW Vulcano medium-calibre gun capable of firing extended-range, precision-guided Vulcano munitions up to 100km.
Increasing vulnerability of critical infrastructure in the North Sea has driven the RNLN to add underwater surveillance capabilities to the MSS. They will act as motherships for UUVs that will be procured off the shelf. MSS will be equipped with standard navigation radars but will have an IAI-made EW suite. This will enable the gathering of electronic signals and communications intelligence data and the jamming of adversary radars and UAS control systems.
MSS will be fitted with a remotely controlled cannon on the focsle, possibly the Aselsan 30 mm Muhafiz stabilised naval gun. Two crew-served .50cal machine guns will also be carried, one on either side of the bridge.
Delivery
The programme has a broad cost envelope – estimated at something between €250 million – €1 billion, which represents very good value. Final costs will depend on the number of vessels and the depth of weapon stocks. The FCS 5009 platform is relatively inexpensive compared with the Barak-ER system and integration costs.
Two vessels have been ordered from Damen initially, the first will be delivered in early 2026 as a testing and development platform. Procurement of weapons and sensors will also begin next year. Damen will be responsible for integrating the systems onto the vessels, while the MoD will oversee the parallel work on the four LCFs to support MSS. Both the vessels on order and all associated equipment are expected to be fully operational by 2027.
MSS will have a core crew of 8 RNLN sailors but will increase to up to 14, depending on the equipment carried. Experience gained from operating combat vessels with a very small crew will help inform progress towards potentially sailing MSS fully uncrewed while controlled from the LCF. XV Patrick Blackett is equipped to be operated remotely but as the RN has discovered, without people to perform basic maintenance and seamanship evolutions, together with safety and regulatory restrictions make the transition to fully uncrewed extremely challenging. Even the operation of small MCM USVs without crew has not been straightforward.
Trailblazer?
MSS effectively blends several ideas about the future of naval warfare into a coherent solution. In simple terms, they are small ‘arsenal ships’ that carry additional weapons to supplement the main combatant. They could also be classed as a tier-2 or 3 combatant that can be placed up threat as a picket whose loss would be much more tolerable than a high-end warship. Integrating complex weapons into containers takes the RN’s PODS and other navies’ development of containerised and modular capabilities a step further.
The project will help the Netherlands rapidly and affordably acquire a Theatre anti-ballistic missile capability without waiting until the next generation of frigates are ready. Additionally, MSS points to an uncrewed future, recently demonstrated on a smaller scale by the Ukrainian navy that has deployed small USVs armed with their own anti-aircraft missiles and loitering munitions. The UK MoD recently launched project COOKSON, asking industry for proposals for USVs up to 40ft in length that will carry a range of effectors to counter threats such as rotary-wing aircraft and ISR drones.
Developing the CONOPS for MSS will be a challenge. The commander of the LCF has both the benefit and burden of controlling and, at times protecting the MSS. The data link between the two platforms needs to be extremely robust or the MSS could be a liability. Even with the sense and decide warfare functions handled by the LCF, a crew of 8-14 is still small to manage sustained blue water operations.
Many navies will be watching MSS to see if it proves successful. In terms of value for money, speed of delivery and distributed lethality, there are potentially many lessons for the RN. This could offer a route to boost surface fleet firepower in the near term as well as inform the Future Air Dominance System (FADS) / Type 83 destroyer programme in the longer term.
It all depends if it is genuinely quicker and cheaper than cutting up the mother ship.
How do you square having crew on board a ship equipped with things that go bang that isn’t built to warship standards? I don’t think that ticks RN’s boxes as this sounds a lot like a one hit ship.
Note this is being made cheap by not being survivable and not being built in EU.
It is a signal as to how the T31’s VLS could be used and why those would add to T45 and T26’s more expensive sensor systems. I’d rather see as much Mk41, NSM and VL Sea Ceptor on T31 as possible as we have bought these hulls already.
Agreed the quote,
“no plans to increase survivability to warship standards”
despite the fact these are meant to operate alongside warships as arsenal ships seems to be trading crew safely for cost-savings.
Perhaps something you might construct quickly during wartime having suffered surface losses and needing to shore-up numbers, but planned during peacetime?…
While nominally designed to ‘naval standards’, most OPVs or FAC aren’t designed to survive modern anti-ship missiles. These MSS aren’t much different. Every life is important, but small crews do offer benefits when it comes to cost. That said, providing the best commercial navigation and search radars combined with a basic but modular CMS can go a long way to make them more survivable when transiting alone.
How is it any different than a crew in a P-8 or E-7? If all the cards are on the table the River class will get pulled into combat and it really isn’t any more defended or survivable. In some ways these 5009s have an advantage with 4 engines and 4 props. You could do a split engine room without much work.
Interesting that the simple addition of a booster takes Barak-ER from a 50km weapon to a 150km one.
Could something similar be produced for CAMM-ER to max out the length in mk41?
CAMM-XR?
Maybe, but Barak is certainly a higher grade interceptors than Camm
Is it really? I think you underestimate CAMM…
Camm is not capable of intercepting any kind of Ballistic missile. The base version which we use is somewhat equivalent to ESSM, making it go further isn’t going to change that.
Why?
Just the way the missile was designed. It didn’t need to do that job as Aster exists, and adding that capability adds a ton of cost
I mean, what are the missile’s specific limitations – is it too slow, is the airframe not built to the required standards?
I don’t know specifics but in terms of size it’s smaller than an Aster missile by a large margin, Aster is 1 per cell, CAMM is 4 per cell , Aster also used small rocket motors to accurately hit a target.
The key difference isn’t size or speed it is the Piff-Paff oblique thrusters that allow ASTER to pull crazy G’s in tight turns.
That is what makes the missile close to unavoidable in AAW.
Now whether that is relevant for a non manoeuvring ballistic missile is a slightly different question. At high hypersonic speeds ballistics don’t manoeuvre currently but they can be deflected by quite subtle changes is air density etc.
However, it is fundamentally a hittile [needs to hit the target for kinetic destruction] which requires a high degree of guidance and manicuring precision – which is a bit different.
The extreme speed of medium/long range ballistic missiles means that interceptors need to be extremely manoeuvrable to be able to hit them. Providing that level of manoeuvrability is expensive, that’s in part why Aster 15 costs so much more than Sea Ceptor.
Even ESSM has a longer range.
Is it? Barak reportedly is slower than the CAMM family – Mach 2 compared to Mach 3.
That is part of what Poland is doing with its project although it is termed CAMM-MR.
Essentially the booster can be a lot dumber and chesper as it doesn’t have to do the high G manoeuvres. It just needs to get the high tech bit of the missile into the zone quickly so it can be more brute force, if you like.
The clever bit can then be done by the agile part of the missile.
CAMM-MR just looks like a longer, fatter version of CAMM-ER, no booster. It’s probably going to end up with sacrifices in manoeuvrability with SM-2 blk3C level capability on a slightly smaller footprint.
What I meant is that you take the (relatively) small CAMM-ER interceptor and add a second stage, a very powerful booster. That way you retain the terminal manoeuvring against small targets and commonality with the original missile, but get the advantages of much greater speed and range.
In the most basic terms what I am suggesting is strapping an ASTER booster to CAMM-ER, but ideally you would retain the smaller diameter for quad-packing purposes.
Booster and small diameter don’t go together in a sentence.
A bug thuggish booster will have a larger diameter.
CAMM-ER would be 2 to a tube lacking at max.
CAMM-MR will be one to a tube unless some miracle chemistry is done.
The concepts show that, with folding fins, the diameter of MR is not significantly greater than that of CAMM – dual-packing should be fairly straightforward.
Straightforward / packing / missile don’t belong in the same sentence.
All we have seen are mockups so far.
You would want to keep commonality with the rest of the CAMM family. So the bit on top will just be a standard CAMM that is delivered to a location by the booster that then parts with the terminal stage to enhance manoeuvrability.
CAMM-ER was specifically designed to max out the diameter of the CAMM launch tube. You can see from the full-scale models at industry shows that the casings have the same diameter, no issues with quad packing there.
ER is only 160kg, ESSM is quad packed at 280kg.
There will, logically, be a point at which a twin pack of circular missiles (Folding fins) is possible.
What’s stopping the CAMM-MR designers aiming for that size point and maximising range from there? I agree that such a large missile (little bit smaller than SM-2 with smaller diameter) will lose manoeuvrability at range and that some sort of hittile/two stage design is preferable, but the core dimensions of the missile remain the same.
Not sure why you think CAMM-ER is twin packing.
The whole concept was to maximise the space available inside the existing CAMM launch tube (with slightly more length) to include a wider booster and side strakes. No difference between that and CAMM for quad packing.
CAMM-MR can be designed down to twin-packing with folding fins to ensure a circular footprint. Then the designers can think about multiple stages and building a motor that uses as much of the available space as possible.
ESSM manages quad packing with a 280kg, 250mm diameter missile.
CAMM-ER is 190mm diameter and 160kg, so quite a bit of room for optimisation.
There would be a huge sacrifice in terminal manoeuvrability for making CAMM-MR one piece.
Which is why I’m going with a two stage.
Fair enough. Two-stage is probably better in the long run, as it allows for future development when compared to single-stage. After all, once a terminal section is established, booster size can be varied in order to extend range or provide greater ABM/CH capability.
Future indigenous interceptor family? Might be good for the Type 83.
Precisely.
And you keep a common parts stockpile.
So you can output standard CAMM or other vistas as needed.
Would a dual pulse rocket motor mitigate some of the terminal manoeuvrability problems of a single stage design?
I wonder what our Type 83 will use as its interceptors – CAMM family, Standard, Aster/Aquila, navalised PAC-3MSE?
I expect a Mk41 adapted Aster will be likely, or an indigenous solution.
If we were sticking with Aster it would be simpler to keep Slyver VLS, especially since they’re making a universal version
We joked about CAMM-BMD a few months ago, but I think the integration of Aster into mk41 is most likely. No doubt BAE will produce new concepts of T83 if it is confirmed in the SDR.
There isn’t really any missile comparable to Aster-30 Block 1NT’s multirole capability currently. It’s combination of extended range, HTK accuracy, and all domain (air-breathing, ballistic and hypersonic) anti-air capability in both naval and land scenarios is unique in the West. PAC-3MSE can’t match Aster-30 Block 1NT’s range, and SM-6 does not have the HTK accuracy.
David’s Sling, the Israeli equivalent, might just top Aster-30 Block 1NT in every area, but that’s the only competitor I can think of.
The RN would be foolish to retire it.
It’s less about foolish and more about what we can realistically do. We’d need to buy new Asters eventually but we’re only upgrading the ones we have.
We’d also need to get LM to actually integrate Aster missiles in mk41
1NT isn’t, as far as I know, deployed as yet?
It is in the RN game plan / upgrade pathway.
I’m not sure it actually confirmed. Block 1 is, but I think Block 1NT is only intended.
You’re forgetting about the SM-3. It’s the big daddy of ship based ABM/AAW missiles. Unfortunately it comes at an eye watering price.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-161_Standard_Missile_3
It’s very capable in it’s niche, but it has no multirole capability. It can just do midcourse, exoatmospheric interceptions, which it excels at. It has no terminal BMD defence or counter air breathing capability.
It’s always a little amusing watching posters make these bold claims about a weapon system that hasn’t been deployed yet and then comparing it favorably to combat proven alternatives that they clearly are only guessing at their performance parameters.
SM-3 is deployed. And Aster Block 1NT, though not in service, cannot fill the role of SM-3.
I’m well aware that the SM-3 has been deployed. The Aster NT is not scheduled to be deployed until 2026 at the earliest so I’m somewhat amused by you making capability claims of the missile that neither the MOD or the manufacturer has made. Can you point to where anyone official has said that the NT will be able to engage hypersonic missiles?
This is from Naval News:
During a recent visit to MBDA headquarters in France, Naval News learned that the new missile is designed to counter new missile threats in the naval domain, such as the Russian 3M22 Zircon and Kh-47M2 Kinzhal missiles (so called “first generation hypersonic weapon systems”), and the Chinese DF-21D (CSS-5 Mod-4) Anti-ship ballistic missile. According to MBDA and DGA experts working on the program, the ASTER B1 NT is fitted with anti-decoy algorithms allowing it to discriminate between decoys and actual missile targets. It is the only European missile fitted with a Ka band seeker. While the detection cone of Ka band seekers is narrower, this band brings improved resolution which is key when dealing with hypersonics or conduction ballistic missile defense (BMD) missions. Ka band usually has shorter range but MBDA actually managed to increase its range by adapting the beam shape accordingly.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2024/10/first-test-firing-of-new-french-italian-aster-30-b1-nt-surface-to-air-missile/#:~:text=About%20ASTER%20B1%20NT,2025%20French%20military%20planning%20law.
Thank you for the link. I think the “yanks” would say argue that they’ve had this capability for over a decade with the sm-6.
Just guessing here, but the Block 1NT’s planned counter hypersonic capability may simply be a product of its anti-ballistic design, given that both the first-generation hypersonic missiles specified in that article are essentially derived from ballistic missiles and would therefore not be significantly more complex to intercept for the Block 1NT.
SM-6 is in a different class, though I don’t think (correct me if I’m wrong) it has the Aster-30’s HTK capability. That’s not for lack of American technology, but rather because SM-6 is also designed for anti-surface function, and therefore requires a large warhead, and therefore doesn’t need HTK. The Aster has a smaller warhead, but isn’t designed for anti-surface warfare. Obviously SM-6 far outstrips Aster-30 in range.
You can guarantee Mk41 VLS. What goes in it is an open question.
That’s a hell of a lot of firepower in such a light vessel. 127mm Main Gun, Tomahawk as well as Barak Anti Balistics and LM’s wow, even if it’s commercial spec and built cheaper, It would still make an enemy nervous.
That’s the updated frigates!
Ha…. completely mis read the article !!! thanks for clearing it up, I was pretty impressed there for a while.
Interesting idea a couple of these per frigate or even one per frigate, would certainly flesh out the fleet. So possibly 10 for a couple of £bn. Hulls built in Vietnam and fitted out in the U.K.
I think we have alot bigger issues than enhancing the existing surface fleet. Let’s actually get and equip the baseline ships we need
With you on this Hugo. There’s the risk of getting too clever by half and what if adversaries just copy and do the same, all the advantage gone? If i can spend a bit of imaginary money and get a few more T31s equipped with mk41s after we’ve fully kitted out the T45s and T26s.
The expensive bit is the missile stockpile. Plus the RN is built for deep water ops, I’m not sure a ship which can’t RAS would fit the concept of ops of the RN.
The expensive bit is developing the missile, integrating and testing it.
The next most expensive thing is having an establishment that can assemble, upgrade and maintain them. That is a cost incurred every single year they are in service so a big number over the service life.
Next to that lot the costs of a pile of missiles look trivial.
The big issue is that you need to buy missiles in a steady dribble so that the EoL dates of various bits don’t line up.
US NOMARS and OUSVs can both refuel. They can fix that if they need to.
The weak link in these things is the data links chirping away. If you are dealing with a peer enemy with decent electronic surveillance capabilities, the data links are going to be like running around with a big searchlight.
There are only 2 roles which seem to make any sense
Somehow this whole unmanned business feels like jumping on a US bandwagon when the US hasn’t really got the bugs out of the bad wagon yet!
In this case this seems more like a nessecity because of the SM2 issue
This is probably a reflection of the cost of US made weapons. The Dutch wouldn’t be considering getting into bed with the Israelis unless there was a huge financial incentive.
You may be making an assumption that a data link requires radio transmission. It does today, but i wonder whether there are other solutions sitting in universities and labs that could change that in the near future? i.e., laser, or weird stuff to do with quantum that nobody understands (including to be clear, me).
I’m not sure it’s even still true for radio. The directional capability can be more finely targetted these days than using parabolic reflectors. Add in intermittent bursts, frequency hopping, relay drones and the like and I doubt it’s like a searchlight at all.
Absolutely
If Dragonfire can maintain the laser beam on a spot the size of a penny, then you could have a two-way system using a pair of smaller turrets that are constantly transmitting into each other’s sensors.
Interesting that no such systems have been demonstrated publicly, perhaps for data sharing within a carrier group?
I am constantly and consistently staggered by your unbelievable knowledge at such a tender age. 6th forms are just amazing these days. Can’t wait to see what you learn at Uni Toby.
Please stick around on these sites, You certainly are a major player.
Thanks Jim, I think my main advantage is to be unconstrained be real world experience. It helps with churning out random ideas, not so much with thinking them through!
I see no reason to leave now!
Reads a bit sarcastic
SAFRAN markets a laser communications system for naval applications, not sure about any UK manufacturing, and of course more famously StarLink satellites use laser links for inter-satellite comms.
Directional communication is nothing new. Every major NATO network in 1980’s had them. It was there that current smartphone tech started.
Laser comms in 1990’s
Current tech would b possible to have less than 1º aperture.
Of course for a ship needs to be stabilized.
The laser itself would by gyro/servo stabilised.
If it is weak link with a surface vessel then what about all these wonderful USV that many here have conducting underwater warfare ‘unmanned’?
The data link would be with the missile and the lead warship with the target data and big radar etc. The munitions ship is a basic container platform.
Missile relay/ferry. Comms should be relatively secure if you have LOS or a point relay using microwave or laser.
Smart move, adding a lot of additional fire-power and mitigating the risk of reliability; the Air Defense Officer has four type’s of missile’s to rely on; RAM, ESSM2, SM-2 and Barak-ER in large quantities.
Secondly, in highly contested area’s (amphibious) it is a great asset (on point) – especially in the North supporting Koninklijke Mariniers/Royal Marines operations.
Aside from construction in Vietnam, the concept is affordable, fit for purpose, based on COTS and available soon; US Nay are you watching?
Blue Water operations? Yes, they either ‘stay behind’ or ‘seek shelter’ based on weather forecast.
In future, combined with sensors on oil rigs in the North Sea? This concept will provide a lot of insights and information for future use, for sure this concept is ‘here to stay’.
Assume Damen will be closely watched by the state owned/subsidised southern shipyards
US might be watching but the damage control standards are a concern for even lightly crewed vessels. Unless the policy is just to abandoned ship when hit.
“Abandoning when hit” may make sense in wartime, but there are still damage control considerations in peacetime. There must be concerns over how a 15 man crew can keep a damaged vessel full of very expensive weapons afloat.
It will be interesting to watch things like this. The USN has been testing Medium and Large USVs, transiting the Pacific and even launching SM-6. It seems that making any vessel optionally manned sort of negates the potential cost savings of keeping it uncrewed. I think the USN has a requirement to have small crews on board due to international navigation regulations. It seems like the concept is to operate these uncrewed in a combat situation, just using them as adjunct missile magazines.
These so called un manned vessels are a little bit of a lie really. There is always a room full of remotes doing their stuff from afar and they still require humans to maintain them…. The amount of Beans and Sausages might be reduced at sea but you can bet the canteens on shore are still churning them out.
In the USAF drone squadrons have on average more on strength than conventional squadrons.
Not unmanned, not small. not cheap.
These seem a little small to me to be wingman to a frigate. Ideally you want something that can go anywhere the frigate goes. I would have thought 80m & 1,000t or more needed. You don’t want your wingman doing a runner with half your missiles because the weather turns a little rough. There are crew on these things so there are limits to how far you can push it.
27 knots and decent range whilst designed to perform well in adverse conditions isn’t too shabby though but there’s no substitute for size really. WW2 Flowers were about 1000 tns, not nearly as fast but certainly made a huge impact. Don’t know if Damen do a 1000 tn version ? I’ll go take a look.
RN WW2 Flowers were around 1,000t, 63m with 10m beam. RAN WW2 Bathurst were around 1,000t, 57m with 9.4m beam. Both were emergency wartime designs built in minor shipyards (if you could build a steel ferry or fishing boat you were a candidate for production). Neither were something anyone would want to serve in on the open ocean. But they did & if the much larger ships they were escorting kept going, so did they. They sank submarines & shot down aircraft.
It’s not WW2 anymore. These are much lighter & even shorter. Axe bow can get you more speed & changes the dynamic if meeting the waves head on. But if you don’t get to pick, it can go from meh to negative. A rough trip to an oil rig will be a relatively short trip & you can bail if you need to. The ship might not sink but the crew still has to live on it. There are bigger ocean going patrol boats.
Damen 6211/6711 might be a better way to go on these.
Yes. One of the pluses of going with IH design for T31 is that it is big enough to keep a pace with the carrier. The alternative design would have struggled.
The planned “uncrewed” small arsenal ships (I guess you’d call them) that are supposed to be built for the Royal Australian Navy are about the right size, I think. Somewhere around 250 feet in length and 2,000 tons displacement IIRC.
I drool at the prospect of RN getting hold of a couple of these to develop the conops . No mention in the article of the MOD’s RFI0039 RN , modular/containerised ASW concepts. Adding a containerised towerd array would give a boost to bistatic sub hunting.
https://geospectrum.ca/catalog/defence/surface-systems/traps-towed-reelable-active-passive-sonar/
I sort of remember this ship, it was rather small but rammed packed with weapons. There are so many others around the World that have an abundance of offensive capabilities but they lack any real defensive capabilities as seen in the Black Sea and to a lesser extent in the Korean Peninsular.
It still is a boat with weapons modules. I am not seeing anything special about this Damen based platform.
Called a Corvette by any chance? The mainstay of small navy’s.
Patrol Vessel P 551.
Esmeralda class, Equador Navy.
670 ton
1x76mm
2x40mm Breda Bofors
6x Exocet MM40
4x cell Aspide SAM
2×3 324 TLT
Yes. But none of that weaponry is module is it?
I post a picture of an example of one of the milestones of post-WW2 surface warship designs and nobody on this site of supposed naval experts who are constantly telling me I know rhubarb about the topic recognise it……..
www DOT marinehist DPT dk/orlogsbib/h/StanFlex DOT pdf
Excuse me but !!!!!! if you are referring to your P551 pic, I recognised it even though I’m no expert.
I was talking about the naval experts here……. 😉 🙂
MEKO started the “modules” but its implication is overstated. My country got the Danish above 2nd hand and the “module” is irrelevant.
Yes it is overstated. That is why I posted the picture of the Flyvefisken-class boat. The class dates back 40 years now. And the hull itself is probably more advanced than the Damen offering here!
I think some do get carried away with the idea of modularity. They really do think a ship can go back to port, spend an afternoon under a crane, and then toddle off the next morning to do something. No thought to training. No thought to the fact that a British government that adores the idea of FFBNW is going to have idle kit sitting waiting on the dockside. No thought to the fact that different roles need different hulls.
A Danish chap once spent a few days talking to us on the old Think Defence website about Denmark’s experience with StanFlex. His conclusion was that the truth strength was it helped at build time and during refit.
Typo. XV Patrick Blackett is a Damen 4008, not a 4009.
Great article!
The MSS’s will be a 1st generation ship for the RNLN for the current LCF frigates but replacement for the frigates is planned. A 2nd generation MSS might be more warship standard build combined with other upgrades.
The current LCF’s will be capable of controlling the MSS but the replacement ships will be far more capable of using them.
The LCF’s will also be replaced in the mid ’30’s by what is now called Future Air Defender (FUAD). Recently new information has been released about this new class of ”frigates”.
Following the most recent designs from the RNLN the FUAD will have a displacement of 10.000 to 12.000 tons. These will be closer to destroyers then frigates in dimensions but also in armament. Plans now focus on a 80 to 100 VLS cells for FUAD, the 127/64 LW guns will be repurposed on FUAD. The 2 upgraded LCF’s radars will also be repurposed on FUAD.
The current LCF’s are fitted with Mk41 VLS for ESSM and SM-2 missiles (40 cells). For FUAD the RNLN looks at other options but does not exclude missiles from the US. Other options are the Barak family missiles from Mk41 or Aster family missiles. The Tomahawk will be fitted to FUAD, so a mix of Mk41 and Sylver VLS is an option.
Cooperation with France (Horizon replacement) or UK (Type 83) are possible on all options.
I don’t see a common design being build but sensor/weapon cooperation is a good possibility in my opinion. The selection of the missile type is currently underway and more info is expected later this year.
Cooperation with the RN on MSS would be very interesting for both navies.
I do wonder whether half a dozen of these platforms would be a good replacement for the river batch 2 when they come to the end of their service in a few years time. Purely tasked for uk eez maritime security. They are comparatively cheap second hand but are fast, have decent range and a lot of flexibility in terms of payload.
But, they are only just over 300 tns whilst the B2’s are 2000 tns, not sure if that really works.
It would be nice to think the government actually took EEZ security seriously.
Those would be too small on their own. You need something about 1000 tonnes that can land a Merlin.
I was told a while back on here that It’s pointless having a Merlin capability without a hanger. B2’s even in warmer waters were apparently useless and they are double the displacement. Having far to few Merlins would be another issue.
Notice what I said. I said land a Merlin not a host a Merlin.
Merlin has a range of 750 nautical miles there is no need for the cab to be hosted aboard the hull. It can fly back to live in a nice warm static hangar ashore.
Do I have to list why you might want to land a helicopter on a ship for a while?
Or can you think of some on your own? 😉 🙂
Never mind having a flight deck gives large clear area for winching and vertrep…….
And I said Merlin because it is the biggest maritime helicopter we have. Makes sense that if we procure a ship big enough for a flight deck that flight deck can accommodate our biggest naval helicopter. Also HM Coastguard operate S92 and AW189 from ten sites around the coast; neither of those are small helicopters.
You can never have too many flight decks. But just because you have a flight deck doesn’t mean there has to be hangar too or indeed a helicopter in that hangar.
Oh… Personally I wasn’t looking for any argument, I was sort of agreeing with you but with a side of caution after being corrected in such a way that my opinions were so wrong previously. Looks like I’ve drawn your Wrath again. Sorry, I’ll be more cautious next time I agree with you .
Blimey mate, I wasn’t expecting that response.
I wasn’t being funny funny.
I was just explaining what I was saying.
I will leave it.
He wasn’t looking for an argument except for the usual big chips on his shoulders
Another new name. How do you choose them? Or do they all live in your head all the time?
The UFWD is the only name that matters
My thinking is that we will need more platforms in more places to defeat new threats as per ukranian maritime drones. Small platform with good seakeeping, camcopter, 30mm, maritime brimstone and ew modules looks like an affordable option – the future threats are going to be very different. Clearly lots of uncertainty in that respsect.
Note what I said, too small on their own. I am all for maritime security. I have spent a lot of time looking at what other states do and we in the UK are lagging and lacking!!!
We need another layer of larger vessel above patrol craft for further out into the EEZ and further into the extreme reaches of the UK Search and Rescue Region.
I find it hard to believe that a 350 ton 52 meter vessel will be able to operate in weather conditions a 6000 ton 144 meter vessel can.
I recently watched a Pathe news reel from 1910 of the French fleet at sea, you should have seen how those 550 ton destroyers rolled and heaved in a moderate see state.
You sort of answered your own question really. They can but not in the heavier Sea states. Early 1900’s destroyers were more like fast patrol boats back then.
So you are required to defend or attack, and the sea is moderately rough and you can not rely on this small vessels to give you the fire power, and we live in the north Atlantic one of the stormiest regions on the planet.
Yeah whatever. I tried giving some realistic balance, it seems you prefer to have some silly combative attitude.
There’s a seriously noticeable trend on here now.
I’m out for the afternoon now, see you in the morning.
Whatever you name might be then.
With reloading missiles at sea still deemed too hazardous, modern escorts will rapidly be out of the fight ( like Diamond in the Red Sea). So trying to increase the defensive missile load controlled by an escort makes sense. The alternative is to build much larger escorts. But this MSS design looks very small for such a task- smaller than a Hunt class and @half the displacement.
i don’t understand what advantage this boat has in terms of launching one way drones with 1000km range. Such a range suggests something other than support for amphibious warfare. To keep expensive escorts out of harms way until shore defences can be suppressed, a bombardment ship might be useful. The WW2 LCT(R) was a similar size.
No more hazardous than supplying ammunition and other stores.
The US Navy has been working on revised transfer while underway.
The naval architects Gibbs and Cox have been working on using self propelled oil rig platforms- which are semi submerged/stable and have large cranes. Best used in sheltered bay or atoll
.webp
image naval news
A different angle
.webp
Nothing but some cheap CGI
Self propelled oil rigs already exist. Thats the reason for using them with their large cranes
I know the USN have trialled missile resupply at sea but this was in benign conditions and might be impossible to do in rougher waters. A USNI article has set out the as yet unsolved problems.
US Navy successfully transfers Mk 41 missile canister at sea | Navy Lookout
it was Sea State 4
But its like sea refuelling , constant practice will make it viable.
I can’t see the RN wanting these. They are too small for blue water operations, can barely replace the European/home waters duties of the B1 Rivers as a stand alone, leaving only their capability as an arsenal ship, which requires a main ship. But which main ship? The RN doesn’t have an LCS, and can put a lot more weapons and missiles on the T31s than they are currently doing. Why would they need an adjunct ship when they can look to the far better Miecznik fit out and just upgun the primary ship?
Smarter use of quadpacked CAMM as the only VLS standard for T45, T31 and T26 would be a cheaper and better solution to increasing missile defence mass. With the current emphasis on drones, perhaps a Fire Shadow like munition needs resurrecting.
I find the Indonesia fit out of T31 to be interesting too.
I think the USN missed a trick not going with IH for their frigate programme. Cheap, robust, long range, big and all built around US weapons.
The USCG already had a ‘frigate’ class already under construction. That should have been 1st choice when they knew that ‘ further development’ was required.
Or this ‘Arctic’ frigate design from Denmarks OSK, if you know what and Greenland
I have asked you repeatedly not to respond to my comments.
I haven’t read what you have said.
Its not a chat room. prima donnas especially Its for the many other readers.
They want a good ASW platform. IH isn’t that
I am not going to get into conversations with you on ship design.
If you want a good ASW ship you don’t delete the HMS………
Even without it, still quieter design than IH
Does it matter if you haven’t got a sonar deployed because you are going too fast or there is too much traffic close by?
Not saying it’s a good idea. But that’s what they chose.
Partially I think it’s due to where they want to build them in the great lakes
I hear you.
But you assumption that IH wouldn’t have fit their needs is a reach. They intended to build 55 LCS originally. Now yes they were being built for a variety of rolls. But if they had stuck with the project is is clear most of them would have ended up as ASW assets as China’s naval expansion accelerated. At the moment the USN use LCS the same as we use Rivers as sort of place holders. The Danes build their ships for the North Sea and Baltic and have an understanding of the conditions there. I don’t think that either IH or Absalon is a noisy design, actually far from it.
Under project Cabot, the MOD is looking for lean crewed/ uncrewed surface vessel to carry autonomous ASW surveillance kit, initially to be contractor operated before transitioning later to HMS.
Huh. Are you mistaking hull-mounted sonar (HMS) for His Majesty’s Ship (HMS), or am I mistaking you? As I understand it Atlantic NET will be commercial owned and operated moving to government owned and operated in the future, BASTION Atlantic.
I’m not sure anyone can say if that will end up including commissioned naval ships. They might be operated from RFA support ships like Proteus. The references to RN owned and operated USVs (Type 92 Sloops) and UUVs (Type 93 Chariots) seem fanciful and a little premature to me.
The Bergamini class was a good choice. If they’d started building a first batch of five, with US-changes only applied to the second batch, they’d have already been commissioning the first one this year.
I don’t know if that ever would’ve happened though. And if it did the US would have an orphan class of ships that weren’t up to their safety standard or using common equipment. Like Spy6 is basically going fleet wide and who knows what else would have to change. In reality the US has ended up developing a nearly clean sheet design because that’s the only way it would work
We know that it didn’t happen. I’m just arguing that they would be in a better place right now if it had.
They would become used to using modern frigates, cheaply and at low risk. The last frigates the USN used were designed in the 1970s: half a century ago. Technology has moved on.
And what then? They would have had five extra ASW ships in a world that’s crying out for ASW ships (the world’s most popular frigate design outside of China is hardly orphan). They would have been in a prime position with Norway, for example. Keep them or sell them, the USN would have been operationally five years ahead of where they will end up.
They wouldn’t have accepted a minimal modification design though
True. I can’t believe what a cock-up they made up of this procurement program. I am expecting that eventually Constellation will end up being a bigger mess than LCS.
Nope
Looks like RN are following the Dutch lead and progressing with Project Cabot, a system of lean/ uncrewed surface vessels to perform sustained ASW.
https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Notice/30e2e6d4-68ae-4b95-aa98-c8da230fc570;text=Contracts
MODULAR AND CONTAINERISED AAD
All
After many years of development – like about four and half decades – it looks to me as if the British Military has finally developed a fully-containised AAD system:
The “Gravehawk” prototype was unvieled at RAF Northholt this week (note 1)
This one from the Daily Torygraph
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/02/14/britain-ukraine-war-gravehawk-missiles-russia-air-defence/
Developed with help from Ukraine: and (interestingly, thee has not ben a single mention of Quentiq being involved in its development (so those must both be two key reasons why this new AAD system has been developed and put into service so remarkably quickly…)
Maybe we can sell this new AAD system to the Royal Netherlands Navy? (note 2)
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Note 1.
RAF Northolt was once very frequently used by Ruusian billionares flying in their private jets…..It seems they are no longer welcome….
Note 2.
Simply because it was unveiled at RAF Northolt………our own Navy will definitely not want it!
I wonder if they are of any use to the UK now the Ukraine war is practically over?
You must be rejoicing with your Master in the Kremlin?
Another day. Another new username Another load of drivel.
You one of those who doesn’t have to go to group therapy because they are already too many voices in their head…………..
How do you come up with these names? Or do use the names of patients in your hospital?
They fire Soviet rockets and might need just a few mods.
I thought they fired some AIM variant.
I think there are 15 units constructed. I wonder if the Marines could use the?
https://armyrecognition.com/news/army-news/2025/exclusive-how-uk-transformed-old-soviet-made-r-73-missiles-into-ukraines-gravehawk-air-defense-system
…………………………
The Dutch Royal Navy bought the Barak-ER for this ship. These missiles have range of 150 km (90 miles). They are basically a replacement for the SM-2 missile that is no longer in production.
The ship however is way to small and to vunerable to be of any use. It can not be refueled at sea etc. It is a civilian ship, it should and can not be used in a full scale war. It is a bad idea.
Its a support ship for deployed missile frigates in higher risk areas. A ‘floating battery’ with more missile cells which must be accompanied by a AD capable frigate for its radars and other sensors to provide targeting information
They still have to get there & if you don’t actually know where there is when you start, then you may want to refuel just like the frigate. The frigate though can RAS. If the arsenal ship cannot RAS, then it needs to carry more fuel (or leave for a friendly port to refuel & then come back again) & more fuel takes space, something these don’t have.
Check the Damen fact sheets
range at max speed 3000nm !
https://www.damen.com/vessels/defence-and-security/stan-patrol-vessels/fcs-5009-patrol
This ship is too vunerable to be used in a battle. A single 76mm round will sink it. It is a cheap solution but not a good one.
Will the MRSS being built for the amphibious role come under the RN or RFA, especially if they contain missile systems as described in the article?
RFA’s can and do carry weapons. The Forts were going to carry Seawolf at one time. Merchant ships can carry defensive weapons. If you look at the centre of this picture you can see the VLS silo.
Thanks for the reply. I probably posted on the wrong article really but not sure an auxiliary with bolt on follows the Future Commando Force model.